You are here: / / GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 5-321 VOIDS A LEASE PROVISION ABSOLVING THE LANDLORD...
,

GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 5-321 VOIDS A LEASE PROVISION ABSOLVING THE LANDLORD OF LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE TO A TENANT’S PROPERTY CAUSED BY THE LANDLORD’S NEGLIGENCE, BUT DOES NOT VOID A LEASE PROVISION ABSOLVING THE LANDLORD OF LIABILITY FOR THE TENANT’S LOST PROFITS CAUSED BY THE LANDLORD’S NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department noted that the exculpatory clauses in the lease which relieved the landlord from liability for the tenant’s lost profits caused by the landlord’s negligence is not void pursuant to General Obligations Law (GOL) 5-321. GOL 5-321 refers only to property damage, not lost profits:

The claim for lost profits, however, was properly dismissed. General Obligations Law § 5-321 provides:

“Every covenant, agreement or understanding in or in connection with or collateral to any lease of real property exempting the lessor from liability for damages for injuries to person or property caused by or resulting from the negligence of the lessor, his agents, servants or employees, in the operation or maintenance of the demised premises or the real property containing the demised premises shall be deemed to be void as against public policy and wholly unenforceable.”

The exculpatory clauses in the lease relieving defendants of liability for lost profits resulting from their own negligence are not void under General Obligations Law § 5-321 because lost profits are distinct from property damage … . …

Moreover, paragraph 23 of the lease amendment specifically provides that “[n]otwithstanding anything to the contrary . . . Tenant waives, to the full extent permitted by law, any claim for consequential or punitive damages in connection [with damage to Tenant’s property]”  … . In view of this unequivocal exculpatory clause stating that no other provision in the lease shall entitle the tenant to consequential damages, the claim for lost profits is barred … . Chaitman v Moezinia, 2019 NY Slip Op 09396, First Dept 12-26-19

 

You might also like
“Pertinent to Litigation” Privilege for Statements Made by an Attorney Does Not Apply If the Relevant Litigation Is a “Sham”—Here Sufficient “Sham Litigation” Allegations Were Made—Slander Per Se Cause of Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed
Flight Elevated Level of Suspicion and Justified Pursuit.
AN ADOPTIVE PARENT MAY BE EQUITABLY ESTOPPED FROM DENYING THAT HER FORMER SAME-SEX PARTNER, WITH WHOM SHE HAD AN AGREEMENT TO ADOPT A CHILD, HAS STANDING TO SEEK JOINT CUSTODY, MATTER REMITTED FOR PRESENTING EVIDENCE ON AND CONSIDERATION OF THAT ISSUE (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONER, WHO IS NOT RELATED TO THE CHILD, DID NOT HAVE STANDING BY EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL TO SEEK CUSTODY OR VISITATION; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD PASSED OUT AT A CONCERT, REFUSED ASSISTANCE IN WALKING TO THE BACK OF THE THEATER SO THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIAN COULD CHECK HIS BLOOD PRESSURE AND PULSE; WHEN HE ATTEMPTED TO WALK TO THE BACK OF THE THEATER HE PASSED OUT AGAIN AND FELL, HIS FACE HITTING THE FLOOR; THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE A DUTY TO ASSIST PLAINTIFF AFTER HE REFUSED THEIR HELP AND THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE CONTENTS OF A SAFE DEPOSIT BOX CONSTITUTED THE PROPERTY OF JOINT TENANTS WITH RIGHTS OF SURVIVORSHIP, THEREFORE THE CONTENTS ARE AVAILABLE TO SATISFY A JUDGMENT AGAINST ONLY ONE OF THE JOINT TENANTS (FIRST DEPT).
LEASE WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER DID NOT REQUIRE LANDLORD TO MAINTAIN THE YARD OUTSIDE THE BUILDING, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN HE STEPPED INTO A HOLE DUG BY PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER IN THE YARD, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO SET ASIDE HIS CONVICTION ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS, WHETHER THE OUTCOME OF THE TRIAL WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT ABSENT DEFENSE COUNSEL’S MISTAKES IS NOT THE FOCUS OF THE INEFFECTIVE-ASSISTANCE ANALYSIS.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE... THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A DRUG, WHICH CAN DISSOLVE BLOOD CLOTS IN...